REPORT 


OF 

ISADORE SHAPIRO 

U 

TO TH Siu£2^ E OF jefferson 

COUNTY, AS THEIR REPRESEN¬ 
TATIVE IN THE LEGISLATURE 

SESSION OF 1915 


To the People of Jeff erson County :— 

Our government is a representative one. The people 
govern themselves through the medium of representatives. 
You commissioned me as one of your representatives, and 
entrusted to me the power of legislating for you, in your 
behalf. 

The legislative session is ended. My commission, un¬ 
less there be an extra session, has terminated. As your 
representative, I deem it my duty to report to you my ac¬ 
tivities, to advise you of various actions of the legislature 
in which you are most interested, and to cast some light 
thereon. To present a detailed account of all activities 
would be a task too cumbersome and wearisome. 

So far as I know, this is the first report of its kind in 
the history of American politics. I hope the example will 
be followed throughout the country. 

“LIGHT IS THE BEST POLICEMAN” 

I shall indulge only in colorless facts. Some of these 
things have been rumored, others gently whispered. I am 
going to speak out. Nothing will be screened. Public 
business is of public concern. Why should public matters 
be private? Secrecy in governmental affairs is baneful. 
Darkness encourages stealth. I am simply going to tell 



T « 4 Ui 7 
If 

2 

you some things about your own business. It is time the 
mass of people, as well as the class of politicians, learn 
how their laws are made and unmade. 

THE TWO CAPSULES 

You will recall that the dominant issue in the cam¬ 
paign was prohibition or local option, and that two slates 
were selected. On the prohibition slate were: B. Asbury 
Thompson, for Senator; and D. R. Copeland, Walter 
Moore, N. W. Scott, Felix I. Tarrant, James Walker, John 
B. Weakley, and W. S. Welch, for Representatives. The 
local option slate consisted of Thos. J. Judge, for Senator; 
and Dr. E. P. Hogan, F. R. Matthews, Matt Murphy, Fred 
G. Moore, John W. O’Neill, Isadore Shapiro and H. U. 
Sims. 

The Prohibitionists called their ticket “The People’s 
Ticket,” and its published slogan was “Pledged to clean, 
honest, economical government in the interest of ALL the 
people—Vote it Straight.” 

Who selected the personnel of the slates, and by what 
authority, I do not know. No one requested my permis¬ 
sion for the use of my name. A then saloon man did call 
me over the ’phone and asked my opinion about putting 
out a local option slate. I advised against it. The first 
real information I had about either slate was the publica¬ 
tion thereof in the press. 

The Ledger urged the election of the entire Prohibi¬ 
tion ticket, while the News favored all the local optionists. 
No paper advocated candidates on their individual merits, 
irrespective of the liquor issue. It was a case of “swallow 
the whole.” 

The major portion of the prohibition slate triumphed, 
the election resulting in the following delegation: 

Senator—Thomas J. Judge. 

Representatives—D. R. Copeland, Dr. E. P. Hogan, N. 

. W. Scott, Isadore Shapiro, Felix I. Tarrant, John B. Weak- 
... : ley and W. S. Welch. 

THE LOBBY 

The legislature convened at noon on January 12, 1915. 
Immediately upon my arrival in Montgomery, two days 
prior thereto, it was evident that the prohibitionists held 
sway. The organization of the two houses was managed 
by non-legislative members. Conspicuous in leadership 
were Borden Burr, of the firm of Percy, Benners & Burr, 
attorneys for the Alabama Power Company, the Birming¬ 
ham Waterworks Co., the Steel Trust, the Illinois Central 
Railroad Company, and various other mining and manu- 


•-,y :V» 


Htw' 



TK 

\°l\^ 


3 

facturing corporations, also partner of the Receiver for 
the Tidewater Company; Charles E. Rice, of the firm of 
Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, attorney for the Louisville & 
Nashville Railroad Company, the Birmingham Railway, 
Light & Power Company, the Seaboard Air Line Railway 
Company, the Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway 
Company, the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, and 
numerous other corporations; Mr. Walter Sessions, of the 
Prudential Insurance Company; Mr. F. M. Jackson, Presi¬ 
dent ot the Jefferson County Building & Loan Association, 
and of the Perfection Mattress & Spring Company, and al¬ 
so a stockholder and director in other corporations. 

These men, with a few other outsiders, not only or¬ 
ganized the two houses, but remained almost constantly 
throughout the legislative session. Their work in behalf 
ot the “cause” accorded them the right of way. That their 
positions as leading.prohibitionists were used to influence 
legislation other than prohibition is indisputable. Whether 
this influence was exerted in many instances to the detri¬ 
ment of the common welfare is for your determination. 

The pro-corporation influence, however, was not con¬ 
fined to prohibition leaders. Corporation local optionists 
joined them in holding the legislative umbrella over cap¬ 
ital. It was a bi-lateral process. 

THE “ INSIDERS ” CAUCUS 

You will recall that the prohibition members of the 
two houses held many hotel caucuses, at which policies 
other than prohibition were discussed and decided upon. 

During the recess, after the prohibition measures had 
passed, more caucuses were held. Thereat the work of 
the recess committees was gone over. In many instances, 
the legislature merely ratified the actions of the caucuses. 

These caucuses, or pre-legislative sessions were 
staged under the management of Messrs. Burr, Rice, Ses¬ 
sions and Jackson. This quartette, holding no authority 
or commission from the people, was ever-present. 

One house member told me he came at the invitation, 
over long distance, of Mr. Burr. 

Several of the members had their expenses paid. 
Where the money came from, I do not know. 

The public can grasp the handicap under which an 
“outsider” labored. 

VOTE FOR CARMICHAEL 

There were two candidates for Speaker, Mr. A. H. 
Carmichael, of Colbert, and Mr. Ed Johnston, of Madison. 

In 1907, when I was an insignificant kid, I was a can- 


4 


didate for assistant clerk of the House. Mr. Carmichael 
was then a member, and supported me over a seasoned 
politician. He has been my friend ever since. I knew his 
ability. He is the most capable presiding officer I have 
ever seen. A short time after his announcement, knowing 
that no man could surpass him as a presiding officer, I 
pledged him my support; competency for the position was 
my prime reason for supporting him. Mr. Johnston, who 
subsequently announced his candidacy, declared that he 
hoped to be the “non-factional speaker.” The question of 
local option or prohibition was not then considered by Mr. 
Johnston. Even though he afterwards developed into the 
local option candidate, I was under no obligation what¬ 
ever to support him. I was endorsed by local optionists, 
but did not sell myself to them. They had no right to dic¬ 
tate for whom I should cast my vote for speaker. My only 
pledge was to vote for local option, which I did. 

VOTE FOR PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT BILL 

After the prohibition bill had passed, and I had voted 
against it, I voted for the prohibition enforcement bill. 
The situation was this: We had prohibition—that had 
already been declared the policy of the state. That issue 
was settled. How could I, as a law-maker, be a law¬ 
breaker? How could I say that although Alabama has a 
law—as a law-maker, I will help to impede the enforce¬ 
ment of that law? To have voted against an enforcement 
law would have made me a partisan of the rankest sort. 
My conscience and my oath and my representative capac¬ 
ity all compelled me to stand for decency and for law. I 
was a representative of the people of Jefferson County— 
not of certain selfish interests in Jefferson County. 

WAS CRITICISM JUSTIFIED? 

Considerable criticism was hurled at me for the votes 
I cast for Carmichael and the enforcement bill. Some 
were astonished when it was discovered that I was not 
owned, body and soul and mind, by the liquor traffic. It 
was charged that I was a traitor; that I had sold out; that 
I was playing politics; flirting with the prohibitionists; 
that I had traded for committee assignments, etc. These 
charges were and are, lies. I positively had no under¬ 
standing, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Carmichael or 
any one else, as to any committee assignments. The com¬ 
mittees on which I was placed prove this. I was given no 
chairmanship. Neither did I have any sort of trade or 
understanding about the vote I cast for the enforcement 
law. In both instances I did my duty as I saw it. 


o 


TRIED TO BE INDEPENDENT 

In my announcement, which was issued before the 
prohibition and local option slates were announced, you 
will find the declaration, “I will be on no slate or frame- 
up. I am wedded to no class, faction or selfish interest. I 
believe in the PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF POLITICS.” 
That certain interests took these words politicianally, and 
regarded them as mere political buncombe, was no fault 
of mine. I meant what I said then, and I mean it now. I 
have been preaching the gospel of honesty and decency 
in public life for several years. If the people who voted 
for me did not think I would apply my creed when I had 
the opportunity, that was their fault, not mine. 

I have always abhorred gangs. Membership in a gang 
means loyalty to the gang, and loyalty to the gang ofttimes 
involves disloyalty to the public. So I pursued an inde¬ 
pendent course. Such policy may have been inexpedient, 
but my platform was based upon independence, and I en¬ 
deavored firmly to stand on that platform before and after 
election. Although 1 voted for Governor Henderson in 
both primaries, I was not an administration follower. I 
was with the administration when I thought it was right, 
and against it when I thought it was wrong. I tried to 
serve in, and leave, the legislature the way I entered it— 
free, independent, unbossed. I had no personal ambitions 
to serve or selfish interests to protect. 

WHAT HAPPENED 

The actions of the legislature will be treated in three 
divisions. First, my own platform. Second, other meas¬ 
ures than those in the platform which I authored, and 
Third, other measures of concern to Birmingham and Jef¬ 
ferson County. 

Taking up these planks in my platform: 

(1) COMPULSORY EDUCATION, CHILD LABOR. 

A compulsory education law, including the stoppage 
of child labor. 

Both laws were enacted. The child labor law pro¬ 
hibits the employment of children under (13 now) four¬ 
teen (after Sept.^lOlb) years of age, except in agricultural 
and domestic service. No child under 16 is permitted to 
work at any gainful occupation except agriculture or do¬ 
mestic service, more than six days in any one week, more 
than 60 hours in any one week, or more than 11 hours in 
any one day, or before the hour of six o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing, or after the hour of six o’clock in the evening. No 


6 


person under 18 years of age can be employed in a mes¬ 
senger or telegraph service after nine o’clock in the even¬ 
ing or before five o’clock in the morning. No child under 
16 can he employed unless such child shall attend school 
for eight weeks in every year of employment, six weeks 
of which must he consecutive. 

Mr. Weakley, in one breath introduced the hill, and in 
the next, did all he could to abolish the Prison Depart¬ 
ment, which department was entrusted with the enforce¬ 
ment of the child labor law. 

The compulsory education law, which becomes oper¬ 
ative on the 1st day of October, 1917, requires attendance 
at school by children from eight to fifteen years of age, at 
least 80 days in. each and every scholastic year. 

(2) WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION. 

I introduced a bill providing for workmen’s compen¬ 
sation, and simultaneously offered a resolution establish¬ 
ing a joint committee from the house and senate to which 
all compensation laws should be referred, for the purpose 
of drafting a suitable compensation law during recess, 
and reporting when the legislature convened in July. The 
resolution was adversed. The bill went to the standing 
committee on judiciary and by such committee was re¬ 
ferred to the recess committee on judiciary. That com¬ 
mittee appointed a sub-committee to draft a compensa¬ 
tion law; this committee consisting of Senators Milner and 
Lee, and Representative John. Senator Milner is attorney 
for the Southern Railway Company, in Lamar County, 
and always voted with the interests. Many of Senator 
Lee’s votes were cast in the same direction. Colonel John 
had progressive ideas about a compensation law, hut his 
opinions did not prevail. This committee drafted, with 
the aid of Mr. Chas. E. Rice, a bill which was in almost 
every respect advantageous to the employer, and disad¬ 
vantageous to the employee. In fact, Mr. Rice wrote a hill 
and submitted it to the sub-committee, and the hill re¬ 
ported was virtually Mr. Rice's hill. The senate judiciary 
committee adversed the hill. An attempt was made to 
substitute my hill for the one reported by the committee, 
hut the effort failed. The legislature adjourned without 
any action being taken on this subject of so deep signifi¬ 
cance. 

Rills were also introduced modeled after the Federal 
Employers’ Liability Act, and abrogating the common-law 
defenses of contributory negligence and fellow-servant. 
The corporation lawyers of the house, however, saw to it 
that these bills never even came up for passage, although 


7 


on more than one occasion efforts were made to get them 
up. Mr. Rice opposed the bills before the House Judiciary 
Committee. Similar bills in the senate were defeated. 
The vote in the senate follows: 

Senate Bill 58, providing that contributory negligence 
shall be no bar to recovery, and leaving the question of 
contributory negligence to the jury: 

Nays—Arrington, Bell, Bonner, Brown, Bulger, Burns, 
Elrod, Faulk, Hall, Key, Lee, Thach, Wallace—13. 

Yeas—Cooper, Easterly, Higgins, Hill, Judge, Kline, 
Lusk, Miller, Weathers—9. 

Senate Bill 59, modeled after Federal Employers’ Li¬ 
ability Act: 

Nays—Arrington, Bell, Bonner, Brown, Bulger, Burns, 
Ellis, Elrod, Faulk, Greene, Hollis, Key, Lee, Milner, Pride, 
Thach, Wallace, Weathers—18. 

Yeas—Denson, Higgins, Hill, Judge, Kline, Lewis, 
Lusk, Miller, Winkler—9. 

(3) REVISION OF OUR JUDICIAL PROCEDURE. 

I introduced six bills relative to our courts: (a) The 
Municipal Court Bill, which abolished justices of the 
peace in Greater Birmingham and established the Munic¬ 
ipal Court of Birmingham in lieu thereof. The bill gave 
this court jurisdiction over misdemeanors. Although the 
bill passed, the misdemeanor feature was stricken at the 
behest of Mr. D. R. Copeland, a member of the Jefferson 
delegation, whose brother, Mr. W. B. Copeland, is clerk 
of the criminal court, and who is one of the chief bene¬ 
ficiaries of the fee system. Conferring jurisdiction over 
misdemeanors upon the Municipal Court would take 
away cases from the criminal court, and thus snatch from 
the clerk of that court, Mr. W. B. Copeland, and the sheriff, 
the profits in fees caused by delays in criminal cases. This 
jurisdiction, however, excepting violations of the prohi¬ 
bition law, was subsequently conferred upon the court in 
one of the bills of the recess judiciary committee which 
has become a law. Mr. Welch did not want to trust Judge 
Abernethy with the enforcement of the prohibition law. 

(b) (c) (d).—Bills were also introduced by me pro¬ 
viding for continuous terms of the circuit, city and crim¬ 
inal courts. The first two passed the house at the first ses¬ 
sion, but immediately after they were passed, Mr. Welch, 
at the instance of Mr. Charles Bice, had the vote recon¬ 
sidered, and as a result the bills did not pass. Had they 
passed, these two courts would have been open the entire 
summer, dozens of cases could have been disposed of, and 
hundreds of dollars saved in fees. 


8 


The bill making a continuous term of the criminal 
court was also introduced at the first session. Notwith¬ 
standing Mr. Welch’s objection to the bill in the judiciary 
committee, a favorable report was given. The bill passed 
the latter part of the session, and is now a law. 

(e) Another bill introduced by me, now a law, and 
which, in my opinion, will tend towards an immediate al¬ 
leviation of the congestion of cases here, is the bill author¬ 
izing the supernumerary judge to hold court wherever the 
dockets are congested. Prior to the enactment of this law, 
the supernumerary could only hold court during the ab¬ 
sence or inability of the regular judge. By virtue of this 
law, the supernumerary judge is now presiding over a 
third division of the criminal court of Jefferson County. 

(f) I also introduced a bill giving the Municipal Court 
of Birmingham jurisdiction over civil cases up to $500.00. 
This bill would have considerably relieved the dockets of 
the higher courts. The bill, however, never got out of 
committee. 

BBOTHER “WILL” LOOKED AFTER 

The consolidated court bill, abolishing the city and 
criminal courts, legislated out of office Mr. W. B. Cope¬ 
land, Clerk of the Criminal Court. His brother, however, 
Mr. D. R. Copeland, saw to it that he was provided for in 
the form of an assistant clerk of the consolidated court. 
Clerk Blake of the City Court was also given an assistant 
clerkship. 

(4) POLL TAX INIQUITY. 

One of the grossest and palpable crimes emanating 
from the Constitution of 1901 is the requirement to pay 
back poll tax. It penalizes the ballot. It impedes the ex¬ 
ercise of the franchise. I introduced a bill calling a con¬ 
stitutional convention to rectify this and other defects in 
our political organism. The bill was first reported favor¬ 
ably, and then reconsidered and adversed. 

When I saw how dominated the legislature was by 
corporate interests, I was not so anxious to see a constitu¬ 
tional convention held within the next few years, feeling 
that these same interests would boss the constitutional 
convention. The conscience of the State must first be 
aroused. To get from under the pressure of corporate in¬ 
fluence is the supreme task. 

(5) RIDDANCE OF THE FEE SYSTEM. 

A bill was passed placing the officers of Jefferson 
County on a salary when the terms of the present incum- 


9 


bents expire, the salaries being as follows: Sheriff, $6,000 
per annum; Probate Judge, $5,000 per annum; Tax Col¬ 
lector and Assessor, $4,000 per annum; Clerks of Courts, 
$3,600 per annum. Messrs. Copeland, Tarrant, Welch and 
Scott wanted to pay the sheriff $10,000. Mr. Scott said the 
office was more important that that of Governor, and Mr. 
Copeland thought it greater than that of United States 
Senator. Senator Judge amended the bill in the Senate, 
making the salary of the probate judge $6,000. The house 
refused to concur in the senate amendment, and a confer¬ 
ence of the two houses was appointed. The house com¬ 
mittee consisted of Messrs. Weakley and Copeland and 
myself, and the senate committee of Messrs. Judge, Pride 
and Hill. This committee recommended to leave the sal¬ 
ary at $5,000 and this recommendation was concurred in 
by the two houses. The Governor, however, sent the bill 
back, with an amendment making it $6,000, stating that a 
majority of the Jefferson delegation had requested him 
to propose the amendment. This amendment was con¬ 
curred in, Mr. Weakley and I voting against it. The sal¬ 
ary of the probate judge was thus made $6,000. 

When the salary hill came up in the house, I offered 
an amendment making it effective immediately, contend¬ 
ing that if future officers could serve under the salaries 
named, that such salaries were ample for present officials; 
that they were all elected on anti-fee platforms, had 
reason to anticipate their being placed upon salaries, and 
that the people of this county demanded the salary basis 
at the earliest time allowed by law. 

Messrs. Weakley and Welch spoke against the amend¬ 
ment, and all the rest of the Jefferson delegation voted 
against it. In an interview in the Birmingham News on 
June 10th, Mr. Welch declared that his “personal opinion 
is that the fee system is right, and that it is a mistake to 
install a salary system.” Mr. Weakley contended that the 
amendment would make the bill unconstitutional, al¬ 
though he gave it as his opinion in conference that it was 
constitutional, and that his brother, Judge Samuel D. 
Weakley, thought it constitutional. The amendment was 
defeated. 

(6) REFORMATION OF CONVICT AND PRISON 
SYSTEM. 

Nothing was done for the reformation of the convict 
and prison system in the state. Bills abolishing the lease 
system, giving the convicts' families a portion of their 
earnings, lessening the convict's tasks, and creating a 
prison commission, with enlarged powers, were all 
strangled. 




10 

The fight against the lease system consumed consid¬ 
erable time. The bill passed the house, but was defeated 
in the senate. The Governor used all the influence at his 
command in favor of the existing system, notwithstanding 
his pre-election declaration that he thought the working 
of convicts for any other purpose than that of self-support 
and the improvement of the condition of the convict him¬ 
self, was wrong. 

The Henderson Lumber Company, owned by the Gov¬ 
ernor’s brothers, works convicts. 

Mr. Borden Burr rendered yeoman service in behalf 
of the bill, as did Mr. Bibb Graves. Mr. Burr’s client, the 
Tennessee Coal, Iron & Bailroad Co., and other non-con- 
vict-working coal companies, urged the bill’s passage. 

All the Jefferson delegation except Mr. Scott voted to 
abolish the convict lease system. Mr. Scott not only voted 
against the bill, but worked and lobbied to secure its de¬ 
feat. The vote on the convict lease hill in both houses 
follows: 

SENATE 

For indefinite postponement of substitute: 

Yeas—Bell, Bonner, Denson, Holmes, Jones, Judge, 
Key, Kline, Lewis, Lusk, Pride—11. 

Nays—Arrington, Bulger, Burns, Cooper, Easterly, El¬ 
rod, Faulk, Greene, Hall, Hartwell, Hill, Hollis, Lee, Mil¬ 
ner, McCain, Price, Thach, Wallace, Weathers, Winkler— 

HOUSE 

Yeas—Carmichael (Speaker), Andrews, Bealle, 
Blackwell, Brindley, Brown (Etowah), Burton, Byrd, 
Campbell, Carnley, Chamberlain, Copeland, Darden, 
Davie, Davis, Dennis, Doyle, Ellis, Fite (Marion), Fite 
(Tuscaloosa), Goode, Greene, Griffin, Hardage, Harvey, 
Hogan, John, Johnson (DeKalb), Johnston (Madison), 
Jones, Jordan, Judge, Kaylor, King, Lazenby, Merritt, 
Moore, Morris, McDonald, McGough, Pruet, Pugh, Biley, 
Bogers (Choctaw), Bogers (Elmore), Sanders, Smith 
(Crenshaw), Smith (Geneva), Spier, Stephenson, Stough, 
Sumner, Tarrant, Thomas, Thompson (Baldwin), Tubb, 
Walden, Weakley, Welch, White, Whorton, Williams, 
Wilson, Wittmeier, Yarbrough,, Youngblood—66. 

Nays—Blunt, Bradshaw, Brown (Jackson), Caffey, 
Carlisle, Carlton, Cooper, Espy, Fuller, Gordon, Grady, 
Grayson (Madison), Grayson (Mobile), Hubbard, Hudson, 
Justice, Kelly, Knight, Lee, Neely, Boberson, Bogers (Sum¬ 
ter), Byan, Scott, Siglin, Spessard, Stewart, Stringfellow, 
Thompson (Butler), Tunstall, Willingham—31. 






11 


PAIRS 

Shapiro, for. Sorrell, against. 

(7) PUBLIC UTILITIES. 

During my candidacy I was inclined towards the 
move to make the state railroad commission a public ser¬ 
vice commission, with plenary jurisdiction over all public 
utilities, but I soon began to realize the baneful result of 
so drastic a measure, to comprehend its viciousness and 
understand the motive behind it. 

The project had the unqualified approval of public 
utility corporations of the state. The movement was init¬ 
iated and fostered by these companies. 

The bill which passed removed to Montgomery what¬ 
ever right was formerly lodged with municipalities to reg¬ 
ulate public utilities. Instead of public service corpora¬ 
tions of Birmingham being ruled by the people of Birm¬ 
ingham, they will henceforth be controlled by three men 
in Montgomery, one of whom resides in Montgomery and 
one in Mobile. The rates charged and service furnished 
by the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company, 
the Southern Bell Telephone Company, the Tidewater 
Company, and the Birmingham Waterworks Company, 
will be determined in Montgomery by the public service 
commission. These commissioners are not subject to re¬ 
call as are our city commissioners, and their decisions are 
not subject to referendum. 

A more dying blow was never struck at home rule 
than the passage of this public utilities bill. My informa¬ 
tion is that the bill was drawn by Mr. Chas. E. Rice and 
Mr. Thos. W. Martin, the latter the general counsel for the 
Alabama Power Company. All of the public service cor¬ 
porations of the state united in pushing the bill through. 
The Governor assisted with a special message and com¬ 
manded all of his forces in favor of the hill. It was gen¬ 
erally averred in Montgomery that Mr. Walter Sessions 
used his influence for the hill. 

The people of Birmingham will not realize what has 
been taken away from them by the enactment of this law 
until some occasion arises for the making of a complaint 
about the overcharge in a water or light bill, or some such 
grievance, and when the matter is taken before the city 
commission the people will be told that the city commis¬ 
sion has no power over these companies, and that they 
will have to go to Montgomery. 

Of the Jefferson delegation I was the only one who 
spoke against the bill. I tried in every way to save Birm- 
ingham. Not a member of the Jefferson delegation came 


12 


to my rescue. Messrs. Scott, Copeland, Tarrant and 
Welch voted for the bill, and opposed my amendment ex¬ 
cepting Birmingham from its operation. Dr. Hogan voted 
with me. Mr. Weakley, who is financially interested in 
public utilities, did not oppose the bill. Here is how they 
voted: 

HOUSE 

Against—Carmichael (Speaker), Bradshaw, Brown 
(of Etowah), Burton, Byrd, Iiardage, Harvey, Johnson (of 
DeKalb), Jones, Jordan, McGougli, Shapiro, Smith ( Ge¬ 
neva), Stough, Vaughan, Walden, White, Whorton, 
Youngblood—19. 

For—Andrews, Bealle, Blackwell, Blunt, Brindley, 
Caffey, Carlisle, Carlton, Chamberlain, Cooper, Copeland, 
Davie, Davis, Ellis, Espy, Fite (Marion), Fite (Tusca¬ 
loosa), Fuller, Goode, Gordon, Grady, Grayson( Mobile), 
Grayson (Madison), Green, Henderson, Hogan, Hubbard, 
John, Judge, Justice, Kelly, King, Knight, Lapsley, Laverty, 
Lazenby, Lee, Merritt, Morris, McDonald, Pugh, Roberson, 
Rogers (Choctaw), Rogers (Elmore), Rogers (Sumter), 
Scott, Siglin, Smith (Crenshaw), Speir, Spessard, Stewart, 
Sumner, Thompson (Baldwin), Thompson (Butler), Tubb, 
Tunstall, Ward, Welch,* Williams, Wilson, Wittmeier, 
Yarbrough—62. 

SENATE 

For—Denson, Easterly, Greene, Hall, Hartwell, Hig¬ 
gins, Holmes, Judge, Kline, Lee, Lewis, Lusk, Milner, 
Price, Thach, Wallace—16. 

Against—Ke y, Weathers—2. 

(8) THE LOAN SHARK BILL. 

To me, one of the most absorbing fights before the 
legislature was on the loan shark bill. 

I have been waging a crusade against these crooks for 
several years. They fought my candidacy, and did all 
they could to defeat me by spreading various falsehoods. 
The distribution of these lies continued at Montgomery 
throughout the session. 

The bill went to the house judiciary committee. The 
Speaker, Mr. Carmichael, and Mr. Weakley, neither of 
whom was a member, of the committe, appeared before 
the committee in opposition to the bill. Both subsequent¬ 
ly voted for it. Mr. Welch also opposed the bill in com¬ 
mittee. Mr. Welch, as a practitioner, was attorney for H. 
D. Keith, C. E. Faulkner, Terry Brothers Furniture Co., 
the Citizens Bank, and Mack & Jeff Clay, all money-lend¬ 
ers at Bessemer. Also appearing against the bill was Mr. 


13 


John May nor, General Manager of the Birmingham Dis¬ 
count Company, who kept his automobile at Montgomery 
to advantage. Mr. Clias. K. Hall, of the Engineers, testi¬ 
fied before the house judiciary committee that Mr. Maynor 
threatened the labor representatives at Montgomery by 
telling them that if they did not desist from endorsing the 
loan shark bill, he (Maynor) would use his influence (and 
he boasted that he had plenty of it) against all legislation 
labor sought. On the scene, too, was Ex-Referee in Bank¬ 
ruptcy Alex C. Birch, claiming to represent Mr. Claud 
Gotten and Mr. W. C. McCarty, loan sharks of Birming¬ 
ham. Subsequently, before the senate committee on judi¬ 
ciary, 1 read an opinion by Mr. Birch, when Referee, de¬ 
ciding a case in which his client, Mr. Gotten, was a party, 
in which opinion Mr. Birch used these words: 

“The referee further finds that for a number 
of years the bankrupt has been doing business 
with the respondent on a basis of 20% per month, 
and that it was understood between the bankrupt 
and the respondent on March 15th, that bankrupt 
was to pay and respondent was to charge, interest 
at the rate of 20% a month, as was the usual 
course of dealing between them. * * * To put the 
matter plainly, the referee did not believe Mr. 
Gotten when he testified that he charged the 
bankrupt only 8 % per annum ” 

The bill was given a favorable report by the house 
judiciary committee, but it was impossible lor me to get 
it up for passage during the first part of the session. I 
made repeated efforts to do so, but without avail. 

Finally, when the legislative session was nearly at an 
end, I asked unanimous consent to call up the bill. Only 
one member objected, and that member was one of the 
Jefferson delegation, Mr. D. R. Copeland, whose brother, 
Mr. Hal J. Copeland, is a large money-lender m Birming¬ 
ham. I then asked for a suspension of the rules, and got 
it Mr. Copeland offered an amendment excepting com¬ 
panies of $25,000 capital, which was instantly tabled. 3 he 
bill passed the house by a vote of 66 to 0. All of the Jeffer¬ 
son delegation voted for it, except Mr. Copeland, who did 

not vote. 

On the floor of the house, I read the following affi- 
davit, as evidence of the shark system in Birmingham: 


STATE OF ALABAMA 
Jefferson County. 


Before me, Nell Freeman, a Notary Public in and for 
said state and county, personally appeared Monroe Stew¬ 
art, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says, as fol¬ 
lows : 

“My name is Monroe Stewart, and I live in Birming¬ 
ham, Ala. I have lived here about fifteen years. For the 
last three years I have been borrowing money from, and 
have been indebted to, Mr. Hal J. Copeland, except for 
about six months, when I was off of the road. I work for 
the Alabama Great Southern Railroad, as brakeman. In 
March, 1912, I borrowed money from Mr. Hal J. Copeland, 
and have been indebted to him ever since, except about 
six months. On all the money I have borrowed from Mr. 
Copeland I have paid him twenty per cent interest every 
month, and if I did not pay the money when it was due, I 
had to pay him forty per cent, or forty cents on the dollar. 
If I borrowed money the day before pay day and paid it 
back the next day, I would have to pay twenty per cent in¬ 
terest for that one day just the same. For the last six or 
seven months, I have been paying him forty per cent in¬ 
terest every month, because I got one month behind. Ev¬ 
ery month for the last two-and-a-half or three years Mr. 
Copeland has gotten my check from the paymaster and I 
have been forced to go and borrow money from him to 
buy groceries with, and have paid him twenty per cent on 
all the money borrowed, and forty per cent if it was not 
paid on the day it was due. I make between sixty and 
seventy dollars a month. Every month Mr. Copeland gets 
my check and I then go to him and give him another as¬ 
signment, and he loans me from thirty-five to fifty dollars 
of my money to live on during the month, at twenty per 
cent interest. 


MONROE STEWART” 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of 
September, 1915. 


NELL FREEMAN, 
Notary Public. 


When the bill got over to the senate an effort was 
made by the lobbyists to defeat it, and it was with extreme 
difficulty that the bill was gotten out of committee. Sen¬ 
ator Lusk wrote a substitute, but could not get bis com¬ 
mittee to act. He finally introduced a resolution requiring 
a report. They reported his substitute favorably. Sev¬ 
eral attempts were made to filibuster to the end of the ses- 



15 


sion in order to defeat the bill, but these efforts proved 
futile. 

Senator Milner moved to indefinitely postpone the 
hill. 1 he vote on this motion was a tie, which was untied 
hy Lieutenant-Governor Kilby, who voted against post¬ 
ponement. The substitute finally passed, the following 
being the vote thereon : 

For—Bell, Bonner, Brown, Bulger, Denson, Easterly, 
Ellis, Hartwell, Higgins, Hollis, Holmes, Jones, Kline, Lee, 
Lewis, Lusk, McCain, Wallace, Weathers—19. 

Against—Arrington, Burns, Cooper, Elrod, Greene, 
Hall, Hill, Judge, Key, Miller, Milner, Price, Pride, Thach, 
Winkler—15. 

1 hose interested in the hill are especially indebted to 
Messrs. Kilby, Holmes, Lusk, Bonner, Lewis and Jones in 
the Senate, and to Messrs. Chamberlain and Walden in 
the house, as well as to the others in both houses who gave 
the bill their support. 

WHO GOT THE MONEY? 

My information is that $8,000 was spent to defeat this 
bill. Some of* the highest-priced lobbyists in the state 
were employed by the loan sharks, among these being 
Judge C. C. NeSmith, ex-Judge of the City Court of Birm¬ 
ingham; ex-Congressman Jesse Stallings; ex-Referee in 
Bankruptcy, Alex C. Birch; and ex-Judge of the Circuit 
Court, J. J. Banks. Mr. John Rather, an attorney of Tus- 
cumbia, former law partner of Speaker Carmichael, and 
brother-in-law of Mr. John B. Weakley, worked against 
the hill. Mr. Chas. E. Rice was frequently seen in consul¬ 
tation with these other lobbyists, and that he wielded his 
influence against the bill is unquestionable. 

After having undergone all of the labor and worry 
over the loan shark bill, who should come to the rescue of 
these money-chasers but the Governor of the State! 

The Governor’s Secretary, Mr. W. E. Henderson, on 
the eve of adjournment, assured me that the Governor 
would sign the hill, and that I need entertain no anxiety 
about it. I told him I would remain in Montgomery if he 
thought it necessary. He promised to notify me should 
any hitch occur, in order that I might come down to Mont¬ 
gomery and be heard. He does not now deny the promise, 
but apologizes by saying that he “overlooked it.” Not 
hearing from him, I assumed that the bill would be 
signed. Moreover, I wrote the Governor in ample time 
about the hill, to which letter he made no reply. His ve¬ 
toing of the bill without giving me a hearing came as a 
severe blow to those who relentlessly worked for the bill. 



16 


He heard only the opposition. I did not even know that 
any opposition had asserted itself before the Governor. 
That he gave me no notice of his intended action was, in 
my opinion, discourteous and unjust. 

His veto of the bill is conclusive proof of the impera¬ 
tiveness for political awakening. 

(9) BIRMINGHAM LEGISLATION FRIENDLESS. 

It was self-evident as mumps from the very outset 
that some members of the Jefferson County delegation 
were averse to anything the city of Birmingham wanted. 
With some of them the matter was personal. They could 
not separate the commissioners from the City of Birming¬ 
ham. Mr. D. R. Copeland was a member of the old alder- 
manic regime, and acted as if he wanted to discredit com¬ 
mission government, as well as the commissioners. He 
also seemed to have a personal grudge against Commis¬ 
sioner Ward. Mr. Weakley also appeared to be preju¬ 
diced against the commissioners. He even refused to at¬ 
tend a conference of the delegation with the city com¬ 
missioners and a sub-committee of the Committee of One 
Hundred. Mr. Welch is quoted as declaring that he would 
oppose anything Birmingham wanted, and he made good 
his threat. 

A majority of the delegation even resented the action 
of the city commission in paying an attorney to look after 
the city’s interests, and manfully demanded from the com¬ 
mission an itemized list of city lobbyists and amounts paid 
them. Neither Dr. Hogan nor myself were asked to sign 
this letter. Why was there any occasion for the employ¬ 
ment of representatives by the city? Whose fault was it? 
Why was it necessary that the people’s money be thus 
spent ? 

SUNDRY LEGISLATION 

WATER WORKS CONDEMNATION BILL 

The waterworks condemnation bill, which authorized 
the city of Birmingham to condemn the waterworks after 
the expiration of the present contract, passed the senate 
last February, and went to the house committee on mu¬ 
nicipal organization, of which Mr. Scott was chairman. 
Mr. Weakley was the only other Jefferson County member 
on that committee. The bill was first adversed, but on my 
motion was recommitted to the committee, after a strenu¬ 
ous struggle with Mr. Weakley, who protested against 
such a move. The bill slept in committee nearly a month. 
It had to be dynamited out. Mr. Scott refused to call a 
meeting. I secured the petition of a majority of the mem- 


17 


bers of the committee, requesting a meeting, but he de¬ 
clined to call one. I then secured another petition request¬ 
ing Mr. Scott to call a meeting for a definite hour. He re¬ 
luctantly did so. Eleven members were present. Mr. 
Weakley seni word that he was engaged elsewhere, and 
desired postponement of action. Mr. Scott wished to in¬ 
dulge in the postponement. One member of the commit¬ 
tee stated that it was his opinion that Mr. Weakley was 
staying away purposely to prevent action on the bill. 
When the vote was taken Mr. Scott was the only member 
who voted against the bill. 

As chairman of the committee, it was Mr. Scott’s 
sworn duty to report the bill to the house that (Wednes¬ 
day) afternoon. This he refused to do, although I re¬ 
quested him to do so. He left Montgomery for Birming¬ 
ham on Thursday morning, and did not return to Mont¬ 
gomery until the following Monday, when the bill was re¬ 
ported. Two legislative days were lost on account of this 
deliberate, unnecessary and wholly unprecedented delay. 
Such premeditated dilatory tactics on the part of a chair¬ 
man have never been resorted to by any other member of 
the legislature, so far as I know. This delay contributed 
to the defeat of the bill, as it did not come up for consid¬ 
eration until the last moment, when everything was in 
confusion. 

Lobbying against this bill were Mr. Walker Percy, his 
son, LeRoy Percy, his son-in-law, Mr. Matt Murphy, Judge 
C. C. NeSmith and Mr. Howard Seay, former assistant at¬ 
torney-general, and now connected with the legal depart¬ 
ment of the L. & N. Railroad in Montgomery. It is said 
Mr. Murphy received $100 a day for his work. Mr. Rice 
opposed the bill. All of the combined corporation inter¬ 
ests in the house were against it. Mr. Weakley exerted his 
influence to the utmost. He did not speak against the bill 
when it finally came up for passage, but he voted against 
it and secured others to speak in opposition to it. He spoke 
against recommitting it, and also made a long and bitter 
speech against the bill at one of the committee hearings. 
He even opposed the amendment submitting the bill to the 
people of Birmingham for decision. Mr. Weakley is in 
the waterworks business, being financially interested in 
the waterworks at Girard and Decatur, the former being 
the Alabama Water Power Company, and the latter the 
Decatur Water Supply Company. He is also President of 
the water works company at Anniston. 

Mr. Rogers, of Sumter, and Mr. Johnston, of Madison, 
spoke against the bill. I was the only one who spoke for 
it. Of the Jefferson delegation, Messrs. Weakley, Cope- 


18 


land, Scott and Welch voted against the bill, and Messrs. 
Tarrant, Hogan and myself supported it. 

Mr. Scott used all of his influence in lobbying and 
working against the bill. 

The people owe much to the Birmingham Ledger for 
its vigorous editorials in behalf of the bill. 

On a motion to lay the bill on the table the vote was 
as follows: 

Yeas—Carmichael (Speaker), Bealle, Bradshaw, 
Brindley, Brown (Etowah), Carlisle, Carlton, Chamber- 
lain, Cooper, Copeland, Ellis, Espy, Fite (Marion), Fite 
(Tuscaloosa), Fuller, Goode, Gordon, Grady, Grayson 
(Madison), Grayson (Mobile), Hubbard, Hudson, John¬ 
ston (Madison), Jones, Jordan, Justice, Knight, Lapsley, 
Lee, Merritt, McDonald, Boberson, Rogers (Elmore), 
Rogers (Sumter), Ryan, Scott, Siglin, Smith (Crenshaw), 
Stewart, Sumner, Thompson (Butler), Tunstall, Weakley, 
Welch—44. 

Nays—Andrews, Blunt, Brown (Jackson), Burton, 
Byrd, Carnley, Darden, Davie, Green, Griffin, Harvey, Ho¬ 
gan, John, Kelly, King, McGough, Pugh, Sanders, Shapiro, 
Smith (Geneva), Spessard, Stephenson, Stringfellow, Tar¬ 
rant, Thompson (Baldwin), Ward, White, Wliorton, 
Williams, Wittmeier, Youngblood.—31. 

Thus it will be seen that the mighty corporate inter¬ 
ests, organized, won another victory over the great mass 
of people, unorganized. 

THE $60,000 BILL 

The bill requiring the county to pay the city $60,000 
annually as an increase on the road and bridge tax, was 
defeated in the house, Messrs. Weakley and Welch speak¬ 
ing against it, although it was understood that Mr. Weak¬ 
ley had promised to support it. All of the other members 
of the Jefferson delegation voted for the bill. The com¬ 
plete vote follows: 

Yeas—Carmichael, Bealle, Blunt, Brown (Etowah), 
Burton, Cooper, Copeland, Darden, Fite (Tuscaloosa), 
Johnston (Madison), Jones, Justice, King, Laverty, Lee, 
Merritt, Neely, Roberson, Ryan, Scott, Shapiro, Speir, 
Spessard, Stephenson, Stewart, Sumner, Tarrant, Tunstall, 
Wilson, Wittmeier—30. 

Nays—Andrews, Blackwell, Bradshaw, Byrd, Caffey, 
Campbell, Carlisle, Carlton, Carnley, Chamberlain, Ellis, 
Gordon, Grady, Grayson (Mobile), Grayson (Madison), 
Green, Griffin, Hardage, Harvey, Henderson, Hogan, Hub¬ 
bard, Hudson, John, Jordan, Kelly, Kyser, Lapsley, Lazen- 
by, Morris, McDonald, McGough, Rogers (Elmore), Rogers 



19 


(Sumter), Siglin, Smith (Autauga), Smith (Crenshaw), 
Smith (Geneva), Stringfellow, Stough, Thompson (But¬ 
ler), Vaughan, Walden, Weakley, Welch, White, Whor- 
ton, Williams—48. 

TELEPHONE BILL 

Preceding the public utilities bill was the bill empow¬ 
ering the railroad commission to regulate telephone and 
telegraph companies, their rates, service, etc. 

For several years the right of the city to regulate tele¬ 
phones, the charges for, and the character of, telephone 
service, had been sought. This power was granted in 
the omnibus bill, which became a law. What was done 
in the omnibus bill, however, was undone by the passage 
of this telephone bill. I attempted to secure an amend¬ 
ment excluding Birmingham from the operation of the 
bill, but was overwhelmingly defeated. Mr. Welch spoke 
against the amendment, stating that he thought the 
authority ought to he removed to Montgomery. He was 
supported by other members of the Jefferson delegation. 
Messrs. Tarrant and Hogan and myself voted for the 
amendment. Messrs. Weakley, Welch, Scott and Cope¬ 
land voted for the bill and against the amendment. Sen¬ 
ator Judge attempted to have Birmingham exempted from 
the operation of the bill in the senate, but his efforts, 
likewise, were futile. 

THE PEOPLE OUSTED 

Every effort was made to deprive the municipalities 
of their control and regulation over public utilities. The 
Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company and the 
Birmingham Water Works Company had become tired 
of yielding to public pressure and public opinion. The 
city commission, has been listening to the voice of the 
people, and the people have been demanding more equi¬ 
table treatment. A prominent corporation attorney told 
me that his clients were continually harassed by candi¬ 
dates for commissioner promising reductions in rates. 
These public utilites then exerted every effort and 
resorted to every scheme to get as far removed from the 
people as they could. It was a well-laid plot, ingeniously 
manipulated, boldly executed. A bill was even intro¬ 
duced taking away from the city commission the power 
over the construction of viaducts and bridges. The city 
was also shorn of the power to regulate or prohibit nui¬ 
sances under certain conditions. 



20 


CITY MANAGER BILL 

The city manager bill pertaining to the state passed 
the house, but did not pass the senate. I introduced a 
manager bill applicable only to Birmingham. It went to 
Mr. Scott’s committee, and Mr. Scott and Mr. Weakley saw 
lit to let it stay there. 

COUNTY TREASURER 

The bill abolishing the office of county treasurer 
throughout the state, with Jefferson county excepted, 
passed. I offered an amendment in the house requiring 
the treasurer of Jefferson county to deposit funds at inter¬ 
est. Mr. Weakley spoke against the amendment. All of 
the members of the Jefferson delegation voted against it, 
except Mr. Welch and myself. Had this amendment 
become a law, the people would have received thousands 
of dollars a year interest on their money, to which they 
are morally entitled. 

BIRMINGHAM COUNTY 

My solution of the Birmingham situation was the bill 
I introduced providing for a separate county for Birming¬ 
ham. Such a plan would ipso facto increase the income 
from taxes from $1.00 to $1.70—the city now receives $1.00 
and the county $ .70. Both would go into the same treas¬ 
ury. Moreover, the tremendous cost of administering 
one of the governments would be eliminated by the con¬ 
solidation of the city and county governments. Friction 
would be dispelled and confusion avoided. Until Birming¬ 
ham is made a county, the perennial conflict between 
city and county will exist. 

There was no chance for my bill. Mr. Welch was the 
only other member of the delegation who favored it. The 
Chamber of Commerce fought the bill. It will ultimately 
come. It is inevitable. It is the only way out. Such has 
been the experience of other growing cities—like Rich¬ 
mond, Denver, Los Angeles and Chicago. There are five 
counties in the City of New York. 

FIRE INSURANCE TRUST 

When the insurance section of the license bill was 
up for discussion I offered an amendment providing that 
no license issue to any insurance company holding mem¬ 
bership in, or whose rates were fixed or controlled by, 
the Southeastern Tariff Association, or any other organ¬ 
ization having for its object or effect the fixing of rates. 
Had this amendment been adopted it would have smashed 
to nothingness the fire insurance trust in this state. 




21 


The amendment was opposed by Messrs. Goode, of 
Wilcox, and Wilson, ol Mobile, both of whom are insur¬ 
ance men. Mr. Weakley also spoke against the amend¬ 
ment. Mr. Welch spoke strongly in its favor. All of the 
Jefferson delegation, except Mr. Weakley, supported the 
amendment. 

ihe motion to lay the amendment on the table was 
defeated. I was told that Mr. Walter Sessions, who was 
at the Exchange Hotel, was then ’phoned for. He came up 
to the Capitol, and, as he expressed it afterwards, “fixed 
it.” Somebody must have “fixed it,” because the amend¬ 
ment was defeated when it came up for passage, altho the 
house had refused to table it. 

MUNICIPAL TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITIES 

It will be recalled that the notorious Section 36-L of 
the 1911 Revenue Code exempted public utilities from 
the payment of franchise taxes to municipalities. Under 
this joker the City of Birmingham lost thousands of dol¬ 
lars. Under the new license bill, drawn by Mr. Weakley’s 
committee, the municipalities were restricted to a one-per¬ 
cent franchise tax on public utilities, and if the public 
utility operated in more than one municipality this one 
per cent would have to be apportioned among such muni¬ 
cipalities in accordance with their respective populations. 
Under this, the City of Birmingham could levy a one per 
cent franchise tax against the Birmingham Railway, Light 
& Power Company, but this one per cent would have to be 
divided among Birmingham, Bessemer, Irondale, Ingle- 
nook, Brighton, and probably other municipalities, and 
should the Alabama Power Company, which is gradually 
monopolizing all the public utilities in the state, gain con¬ 
trol over the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Com¬ 
pany, it would mean that Birmingham’s share of this one 
per cent would have been almost nil. 

I fought to have this tax unrestricted, but failing in 
this, succeeded, with the able assistance of Colonel John, 
of Dallas, in securing the adoption of an amendment 
which is now Subsection 92 of the license bill. This 
authorizes municipalities to annually assess and collect 
of public utilities a franchise tax not exceeding two per 
cent of the gross receipts of the business of such public 
utilities within the municipalities for the preceding year. 
No apportionment need be made. This amendment will 
yield to the City of Birmingham thousands of dollars in 
taxes during the next four years. No help was received 
from the other members of the Jefferson delegation anent 
the amendment. 


22 


Mr. Weakley is financially interested in the street 
railway at Decatur, the North Alabama Traction Com¬ 
pany, which company operates in both Old and New 
Decatur. 

I was also successful in having Section 36-F expressly 
repealed. 

EXEMPTIONS 

The scheme of the Alabama Power Company and the 
cotton mill owners to secure exemption from taxation for 
a period of years was additional evidence of the strength 
of the Alabama Power Company and other corporate 
interests in the legislature. 

The vote on exemptions in the senate follows: 

SENATE 

Yeas—Arrington, Bell, Bonner, Brown, Denson, East¬ 
erly, Ellis, Faulk, Greene, Hartwell, Key, Kline, Eee, Pride, 
Thach, Wallace—16. 

Nays—Bulger, Burns, Cooper, Higgins, Hill, Judge, 
Lewis, Lusk, Miller, Milner, Winkler—11. 

Although the matter of exemptions came up in the 
House twice, once in committee of the whole and then 
again when this report was being acted upon, the Jour¬ 
nal does not show the aye and nay votes on the question. 
From the journal it merely appears that the amendment 
to strike the exemptions was laid on the table. There is 
no record on the subject. Thus it is now impossible to 
tell as a matter of record who voted for or against the 
exemptions. 

How it came about that the aye and nay vote does not 
appear on the journal is a mystery, as an aye and nay 
vote was called for and taken. Is it possible that some 
members of the House having political ambitions have 
had something to do with this omission? 

Of the Jefferson delegation Dr. Hogan and myself 
voted against the exemptions, while Messrs. Copeland, 
Scott, Tarrant, Weakley and Welch voted for them. 

INFLUENCE OF ALABAMA POWER CO. 

The legislative session proved the tremendous power 
of the Alabama Power Company in Alabama politics. 
Many of the leading lawyers of Alabama are attorneys for 
the company, and the company was not even devoid of 
representation in the two houses. 

The Alabama Power Company is composed of the 
following companies: Anniston Electric &. Gas Co., 
Asbury Electric Power Co., Horne Alabama Railway, 


23 


Power & Mfg. Co., Muscle Shoals & Hydro-Electric Power 
Co., Alabama Power & Light Company, Alabama Prop¬ 
erty Co., Little River Power Co., Alabama Interstate 
Power Co., Birmingham, Montgomery & Gulf Power Co. 

The Alabama Power Company not only controls prac¬ 
tically all the water power of the state, but even controls 
and operates the electric light and water business in 
Anniston, Atalla, Talladega, Huntsville, Decatur, New 
Decatur and Hartselle; all the street railway business in 
Anniston, Attalla, Talladega, Huntsville, Decatur, New 
den, v Decatur and New Decatur. This company also 
furnishes all the current used by the Birmingham Ry., 
Light & Power Co., which latter company sells the power 
to citizens of Birmingham at exorbitant profits. The 
company also owns $950,000 worth of stock in the Amer¬ 
ican Cities Railway Company, which is the street railway 
combine owning the Birmingham street railway company. 

These facts about this company are set forth merely 
to give the people a glimpse into the enormous holdings 
of this English-capital concern, and to warn the people 
that the Alabama Power Company, if permitted to go 
unmolested and unrestrained, not only will own every 
public utility in Alabama, but will absolutely control the 
state’s politics. 

WOMAN SUFFRAGE 

Altho the woman suffrage bill did not pass, it received 
more than a majority of votes in the house and a fair 
vote in the senate. 

A sufficient number of members of the house com¬ 
mittee on privileges and elections had pledged to vote 
to report the bill favorably, but several of these did the 
contrary and voted to adverse the bill. The bill, however, 
was taken from the adverse calendar. 

Mr. Green, of Dallas, who asked for the privilege of 
introducing the bill, and who championed it for awhile, 
abandoned it, snuggled up to the antis and made a speech 
against his own bill. 

An anonymous, currish pamphlet was distributed 
among the members of the legislature by a few men from 
Selma, which pamphlet was replete with lies, tending to 
prejudice the suffrage cause. 

The vote on the suffrage bill follows: 

HOUSE 

Yeas—Bradshaw, Brown (Jackson), Caffey, Camp¬ 
bell, Carlton, Carnley, Chamberlain, Cooper, Copeland, 
Davie, Dennis, Doyle, Ellis, Goode, Gordon, Grady, Gray¬ 
son (Mobile), Griffin, Harvey, Henderson, Hogan, Hub- 


24 


bard, Hudson, John, Johnston (Madison), Judge, Kaylor, 
King, Lapsley, Laverty, Lazenby, Lee, McGough, Neely, 
Pugh, Riley, Rogers (Choctaw), Rogers (Sumter), Shap¬ 
iro, Sorrell, Speir, Stewart, Sumner, Thomas, Ward, 
Weakley, White, Williams, Willingham, Wilson, Yar¬ 
brough, Youngblood.—52. 

Nays—Carmichael (Speaker), Andrews, Realle, 
Blackwell, Blunt, Brindley, Burton, Byrd, Carlisle, Dar¬ 
den, Davis, Fite (Marion), Fuller, Grayson (Madison), 
Green, Hardage, Johnson (DeKalb), Jones, Jordan, Jus¬ 
tice, Kelly, Merritt, Moore, Morris, McDonald, Roberson, 
Rogers (Elmore), Ryan, Sanders, Scott, Siglin, Smith 
(Crenshaw), Smith (Geneva), Spessard, Stephenson, 
Stringfellow, Stough, Thompson (Baldwin), Thompson 
(Butler), Tunstall, Walden, Welch, Whorton—43. 

SENATE 

Yeas—Brown, Easterly, Faulk, Green, Hall, Hartwell, 
Higgins, Hollis, Kline, Miller, Price, Weathers—12. 

Nays—Arrington, Bell, Bonner, Bulger, Burns, Den¬ 
son, Elrod, Ellis, Hill, Jones, Judge, Key, Lee, Lewis, Lusk, 
McCain, Pride, Thach, Wallace, Winkler—20. 

LABOR LEGISLATION FORLORN 

Legislation sought by labor fared badly. 

The various lalDor organizations maintained repre¬ 
sentatives at Montgomery during the entire session. They 
did valiant service, and really displayed heroism in striv¬ 
ing from day to day against chances of success, to have 
enacted into law bills beneficial to the vast army of Ala¬ 
bama bread-earners. With the exception of an electric 
head-light bill, all of their efforts were futile. It was an 
anti-labor legislature. If the corporation lobby was 
unsuccessful at any time, I do not recall it. 

President Harrison and Secretary Bowen, as well as 
other officers of the State Federation of Labor, spent some 
time at the Capitol. Mr. Kennemer, of the United Mine 
Workers, was also in attendance. Railway crafts were 
represented by Messrs. H. F. Waters and Chas. K. Hall, 
of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; R. C. Cad- 
den and Carl E. Roberts, of the Brotherhood of Locomo¬ 
tive Firemen and Enginemen; and M. E. Morris, of the 
Order of Railway Conductors. 

The two-weeks pay-day bill, introduced at various 
times, and in different forms, lived shortly and died pain¬ 
fully. It never got out of committee in the house. It was 
defeated on the floor of the senate, the vote being as fol¬ 
lows : 



25 


Nays—Arrington, Bell, Brown, Bulger, Burns, Cooper* 
Ellis, Elrod, Greene, Holmes, Key, Lee, Lewis, Milner, 
Pride, Thach, Winkler.—17. 

Yeas—Bonner, Denson, Easterly, Hall, Hartwell, Hig¬ 
gins, Hill, Jones, Judge, Kline, Lusk, McCain, Wallace, 
Weathers—14. 

The bill abolishing commissary checks, the shed bill 
and the full-crew bills, were all .given final resting places 
in committee. 

Most of these bills went to the committee on com¬ 
merce and common carriers of the house, which was a 
strong corporation committee. Messrs. Tunstall of Hale, 
and Lapsley of Dallas, both attorneys for the Southern 
Bailway Company, were members of the committee, as 
was also Mr. Green of Dallas, an employee of that road. 
The chairman was Mr. Bradshaw of Lauderdale. 

Messrs. Burr and Bice appeared before the com¬ 
mittees in opposition to the bills. 

JITNEYS 

An ingenious scheme for legislating the jitneys out 
of business was contained in Mr. Weakley’s license bill. 
It provided that if a jitney deviate from its regular course 
its license would ipso facto be revoked. I succeeded, with 
the aid of Colonel John, in having this stricken. 

Mr. Weakley is financially interested in the Decatur 
street car company. Decatur has jitneys. 

EDUCATIONAL LAWS ENACTED 

The educational work of the legislature was really 
epochal. I regard it as the most salient result of the ses¬ 
sion. Credit for this is primarily due to the assiduousness 
of Superintendent Feagin. These educational measures 
became laws: 

1. Providing for the creation of an Illiteracy Com¬ 
mission. 

2. Authorizing women to serve on boards of educa¬ 
tion. 

3. Authorizing the state hoard of examiners to issue 
and extend certificates, and repealing the provision for 
issuing temporary certificates. 

4. Prohibiting the employment of public school 
teachers of less than 17 years of age. 

5. Authorizing the submission of a local tax amend¬ 
ment. 

6. Making local taxation effective. 

7. Providing for a change in the method of electing 
boards of education in cities of 2000 and less than 6000 


26 


inihabitants, and placing the schools of incorporated 
towns with less than 2000 population under the control 
of the county board of education. 

8. Providing for a county board of education elected 
by the people from the county at large, with power to 
select the county superintendent of education and to 
administer the public schools of the county. 

9. Requiring boards of education to admit pupils 
who live more than three miles from any high school to 
any public school, and requiring the teacher, if compe¬ 
tent, to teach such pupils any high school subject. 

10. Amending the text-book commission law. 

11. Requiring private, denominational and paro¬ 
chial schools to make reports. 

12. Compulsory attendance beginning October 1, 
1917. 

13. Providing for an annual appropriation of $134,- 
000 for the erection, repair and equipment of rural 
schools. 

14. Changing the plan for the holding of teachers' in¬ 
stitutes. 

15. Making an annual appropriation to any county 
levying and collecting a special county tax. 

OTHER MEASURES PASSED 

Among other measures which I authored and suc¬ 
ceeded in having enacted into law are the following: 

Bill permitting women to serve on school boards. 

Reduction of the interest required to be paid in cases 
where property sold for taxes is redeemed, from 15 to 10 
per cent. 

Requiring all fees allowed officers under the new rev¬ 
enue code to he paid into the county treasury. 

Requiring all fees allowed officers under the new li¬ 
cense code to l3e paid into the county treasury. 

Allowing arbitration to property owners from decis¬ 
ions of county equilization boards without cost. 

Abolition of the office of county auditor of Jefferson 
County. 

Abolition of the office of county road supervisor of 
Jefferson County. 

The principle of my bill requiring polling places for 
every 300 voters was incorporated into the general elec¬ 
tion laws. 

An honest advertising bill which prohibits and pun¬ 
ishes the publication of misleading and false advertise¬ 
ments. .-5 


27 


The initiative section in the five-commissioner bill, 
under which 1,500 qualified voters can submit an ordi¬ 
nance to the commission of Birmingham. The commis¬ 
sion must either pass the ordinance or submit it to a vote 
of the people for ratification or rejection. This is the first 
time in the history of the state that government has been 
placed directly in the hands of the people. 

A law preventing the desecration or mutilation of the 
American, State and Confederate flags. 

A bill breaking up the misuse of bailiffs by the sheriff, 
and authorizing the appointment of bailiffs by the judges 
of the various courts. Heretofore the bailiffs had been 
paid by the county, and the sheriff had been using them 
and reaping the benefit of their services at the expense of 
the county. 

A law providing for an officer in Jefferson County to 
enforce laws against cruelty to animals. 

NOT ALL THORNS 

The impression is not sought to be conveyed herein 
that all of the legislative work was unwholesome. Some 
of it was good. 

The educational bills, as stated, are excellent. 

The searchlight of the Investigating Committee was 
effective, and many of its bills, now laws, will work to the 
State’s advantage. 

The judiciary bills do not attain the highest efficiency. 
Sufficient time was unavailable. But a long leap was 
made towards a more economic and just administration 
of justice. Time alone can recapitulate the full worth of 
the Recess Judiciary Committee’s labor, but certain it is 
that it will result in some needed relief. 

The plans for the State and County Boards of Equali¬ 
zation devised by the Recess Committee on Finance and 
Taxation are good. Their exact value, of course, is de¬ 
pendent upon the courage, ability and fearlessness of 
those entrusted with their administration. But that the 
scheme, as a whole, is an improvement, is indisputable. 
The original hill was very favorable to the corporate in¬ 
terests. 

The election laws are modern. Their worth will more 
easily and intelligently he tested by use. They were writ¬ 
ten by Mr. Borden Burr. 

THE GOVERNOR’S STILLETTO 

The Governor’s veto has also been invoked by cor¬ 
porate interests. 


28 


JURY COMMISSION 

I succeeded in having the present jury commission 
system abolished, thereby eliminating 214 offices, and sav¬ 
ing the State thousands of dollars annually. My amend¬ 
ment provided that the jury commission be composed of 
the sheriff, the circuit clerk and the probate judge, who 
were to serve without compensation, instead of distinct 
paid commissioners as presently constituted. They had 
authority in Jefferson County to employ a clerk. 

The jury commission system in Jefferson County is 
destructive of justice. At a meeting of the Bar, a resolu¬ 
tion was unanimously adopted demanding its correction, 
and endorsing the plan which was finally adopted by the 
legislature. 

The corporations opposed the bill. The Governor, 
whose chief cry is retrenchment, heeded their cries, and 
vetoed the bill. He now has 214 more jobs to distribute 
among the waiting faithfuls. 

SENATE BILL 822—A RAILROAD VICTORY 

The Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 822 is another 
indication of the political power of the railroads in this 
state. 

This bill was drawn by Judge Samuel D. Weakley, in 
behalf of the freight payers of the state. It did nothing 
more than place the people on an equality with the rail¬ 
roads with respect to notice and right of appeal. Under 
the existing law, railroads can appeal from decisions of 
the Railroad Commission, but the shippers cannot. Rates 
are raised without notice. 822 sought to remedy this. But 
the Governor said, “Nay.’ 

HUMAN RIGHTS vs. PROPERTY RIGHTS 

We have got to free ourselves from the influence of 
predatory wealth. Go down the list of the members of the 
two houses, and see how many of the “leaders” are cor¬ 
poration-environed. Mr. Hugh Roberts, in his resume of 
the legislative work, declared that Mr. Tunstall, of Hale, 
was one of the two most influential men in the House. For 
two decades Mr. Tunstall has been the acknowledged rep¬ 
resentative of vested interests in the legislature. He very 
seldom espoused a cause unless it was to the interest of his 
clients. His railroad affiliations are so generally conceded 
that at the mock session on the eve of adjournment, he 
was presented with a toy railroad. Representative Brad¬ 
shaw, of Lauderdale, was presented with a water sprink¬ 
ler, signifying his friendship for the Alabama Power Com¬ 
pany. 


29 


Representative Lapsley, of Dallas, declared on the 
floor ot the house that he possessed nine railroad passes. 
He drew $20.00 mileage from the State. Representative 
Brindley, of Etowah, Gadsden Counsel for the A. G. S. R. 
R. Co., rode back and forth on a pass, and drew $64.00 
mileage Irom the State. Doubtless other men in both 
houses indulged in that practice. Speaker Carmichael is 
attorney for the Southern Railway. 

ISSUES OF THE FUTURE 

The next state campaign should evolve around two 
prime issues. First, liberation from corporate domina¬ 
tion; Second, a new Constitution, that will modernize and 
futurize our organic law. 

The people should see to it that these two paramount 
problems are not screened by such fictitious and super¬ 
ficial issues as prohibition. If the people demand prohi¬ 
bition, it is not impossible for them to get that, plus; not 
prohibition, minus. They should demand men, not labels. 

MUST DEAL IN FUNDAMENTALS 

The common good imperatively demands that we get 
down to fundamentals in politics. Convention days have 
been relegated to the political relics, supposedly accompa¬ 
nied by convention tactics; but even in the “good old con¬ 
vention days” politics were never more completely domi¬ 
nated by a small cluster of political domineers than at 
the present. These men are bosses and now “run” the 
State. They hold secret meetings, really nominate candi¬ 
dates, and dictate the policies of the State. I assert that 
Messrs. Jackson, Burr, Sessions and Rice absolutely con¬ 
trol the politics of Alabama. 

LOBBYISTS CAMPED ON FLOOR 

Notwithstanding the Constitution prohibits the use of 
the floor when the House is in session by other than mem¬ 
bers, employees, representatives of the press, and those 
extended such privileges by unanimous consent, corpora¬ 
tion lobbyists camped on the floor of the House, in direct 
violation of the Constitution. 

In the rules for the mock session, the following offi¬ 
cers of the “Third House” are listed: Speaker, Charley 
Rice; Doorkeeper, Howard Seay; Assistant Doorkeeper, 
Jim Davidson (Secretary of the Alabama Coal Operators’ 
Association); Rules Committee, Walter Sessions, Borden 


30 


Burr, Fred Jackson, George Jones (of the L. & N. R. R. 
Co.), Jelks Cabaniss. Mr. Bradshaw was made chairman 
of the committee on exemptions. 

LEGISLATURE NOT RESPONSIVE 

My experience in the legislature convinced me that 
progress will continue to be slow so long as our present 
legislative system exists. 

Our legislature meets but quadriennially. The ses¬ 
sions are restricted to 50 legislative days. It is impossible 
within that time to give measures the consideration and 
thought they deserve. Some men go to the legislature as 
if they were attending a convention. They have no def¬ 
inite end in view, no purpose to serve. To legislate wisely, 
a knowledge of government is essential. To frame laws 
under which people must live is a function of extreme 
solemnity and responsibility. Its seriousness cannot be 
exaggerated. What a power it is! Yet hills are voted upon 
and passed with their contents known only to a few mem¬ 
bers. It was not unusual for a member to interrupt a 
roll call and exclaim that he did not know what was being 
voted on. When the conference report of the revenue bill 
was being discussed, one prominent member from Mont¬ 
gomery moved that the whole report be adopted with¬ 
out its being read. This report contained 72 amendments, 
and yet many members were willing to embrace it whole 
without knowing what the amendments were. It is not in¬ 
frequent for either house to swallow bills whole, capsule- 
wise. The merits of measures are not given sufficient 
thought. The whole system demands rectification. Ven¬ 
tilation is needed. A more deliberate, calm and intelli¬ 
gent system must be devised. More responsive and more 
responsible legislatures are imperative. The thing is not 
serious enough. 

NO SOUR GRAPES 

This report is not written in a spirit of hostility or 
with an end of “getting even” with some one, or in an en¬ 
deavor of “showing somebody up.” My personal rela¬ 
tions with nearly every member were most cordial. Some 
of them I admire and respect. The friendships formed 
with a host of them will, I hope, be warm and everlasting. 
Many of them are patriotic, courageous, honest and high- 
minded. My own actions are, of course, susceptible to the 
fallibility of mankind. My sole desire is to acquaint the 
people with conditions; to state the case, and to leave the 
decision to the jury—the electorate. 


31 


YOU ARE BOSS 

After all, the voter is master. He controls. He reaps 
what he sows. The government is his. The people are the 
government, and the exercise of governmental functions is 
but their exercise, for themselves, through the form of 
government. Political rottenness is bred by the assump¬ 
tion on the part of the average voter of a callous and in¬ 
different attitude towards governmental affairs. By hon¬ 
est and active political participation the voter can get 
what he demands. Legislative enactment is but the re¬ 
flex of mass demand. Apathy breeds rottenness. When¬ 
ever a majority of the voters are sufficiently solicitous and 
active they will receive the legislation they seek. Our 
greatest political crime is not dishonesty on the part of 
politicians, but disinterestedness on the part of the voters. 
Crookedness has an effective way of combining for self- 
preservation and self-aggrandizement. Decency is prev¬ 
alent, but is unsolidified and unassertive. To overwhelm 
crookedness in politics, decency must pulsate with life. 
Dormant decency begets active indecency. 

CONCLUSION 

My pilgrimage into the legislature was a heavy per¬ 
sonal sacrifice. Financially, it placed me in a worse fix 
than before I entered the practice of law. It will take me 
several years to recoup the loss. It also resulted in the 
alienation of some former friends. But if my feeble en¬ 
deavors in any way tended towards mass betterment, or 
if this report will hasten in the least the shining of the sun 
upon a more just, a more righteous, a more altruistic state, 
then I will feel that my labors were productive of good; 
that I have made no sacrifice, that I will have rendered to 
the State a service. To serve as a utilitarian in the legisla¬ 
ture was my mission; to help ameliorate the lot of Ala¬ 
bamians, my aim. I am grateful for the opportunity you 
gave me to serve. Would that I could have achieved more. 

Respectfully, 

ISADORE SHAPIRO. 




Birmingham, Ala., March 1, 1916. 











0 033 239 U7 





